The Sharmat

It would be, but it should fit with the rest of the setting. If a golem does fit, great. That's certainly different. I just don't want an asexual race inserted into the game as a playable race simply to have an asexual PC option.

The degree to which this board's input should alter Obsidian's plans is debatable, but even if that degree is huge; judging by this poll the majority of voters would like firearms to be a feature, so your statement isn't relevant in this case.

As you say, romance is a story feature. Thus the use of the qualifier "Other". And apparently, according to this poll, a sizable minority are willing to divert a non-negligible degree of effort and writer time from other features of the story to at least one romance arc. This poll is not intended to be a value judgement. You can never get something for nothing, and time spent on any feature is coming with an opportunity cost weighted against every other feature it could have been spent on. I felt the question "Do you consider it important" to be far too nonspecific. Important in regards to what?

Thus the *IF*. I'm also getting the impression from the one of your post that you think I'm opposed to romance options. Which is not the case. Gorth: That's true, but it's certainly a plot in the game that heavily dealt in romance as a theme, and I think the plot would have been poorer without it. I suppose it's not what most people think of in this scenario though. And you totally make me want Avellone to write an in game romance. I can't really think of any game where what you're describing has happened and it would be awesome.

I remember there were instances in Torment where a high dexterity character could catch people attempting to pick pocket him. More stuff like that would be nice. Though perhaps with higher stakes every once in awhile, too. Mages don't have to have all the fun.

This. Gunpowder was invented in the real world pretty close to the time that William the Bastard of Normandy conquered England. It was a long time before it came to dominate warfare. We can have our cake and eat it, too.

Deionarra was really important. It wasn't really a romance "option", as it's a relationship that had already occurred in the past (and was being faked in any case), but it was a subplot that dealt with romance and was vital to the plot. EDIT:Oh, and I would like to point out that this wasn't technically a "should there be romance or not?" thread so much as a "how high a priority are they for you if you're in favor of them?" thread.

dlux All the questions you listed as examples of bias in what appears to be an reductio ad absurdum argument seem perfectly valid discussion topics to me. Is that bad? May I also ask specifically what position the questions appear to be bias towards, and how they might be more impartially phrased?

Quite true, and that should be taken account in world building, I agree. However there is much more the the aesthetics of a culture than the basic weapon and armor designs. I'm saying that just because you have guns does not necessarily mean you also have powdered wigs, clothes with frills, and a dueling culture. If you enjoy renaissance or age of sail aesthetics then it's simply a matter of preference, of course.

Thing is, technically romantic relationships, as they fall under character interaction, ARE a storyline feature. It's a question of how important a feature it is in peoples' minds. And in a genre largely characterized by narrative driven gameplay, and a company known for same, there's a blurry line between storyline and gameplay.

Then you should discuss those points in those threads, surely? Is it really worthwhile to add nothing to a discussion other than "I don't think this discussion is important."? I'm perfectly happy with a game with no hint of romance at all, personally. But people are discussing it, they have things to say about it, and this thread was created to address a specific question regarding it. EDIT: Callimachus, what about the questions do you find biased? If they are phrased poorly I'd like to correct them. The purpose of the last question was actually to discern what percentage of people in favor of romances felt that "if you can have one, you should have them all.", if that makes snse.

I realize this is probably half a joke, but for the half that's not: You really don't see how an Oblivion RPG would have a certain degree of overlap with Bioware's consumers? Though for my part I hope any party interactions only learn from the things Bioware did right, and not from things that they seem to do simply because they think it's required by their fanbase. I get the Bioware hate, really, but some of their recent games really did have wonderful character interaction...which makes the sub par sections stand out all the more. baby, bathwater, etc...

It's a unique culture with a specific look because it looks exactly like a real world culture? At the very least we can have creative mix-and-match from real world history. Why not musket bearing Romans and Renaissance Pacific Islanders?

I don't really understand how a transgender person with difficulty connecting to a nontransgendered character would find it easier to connect to an asexual race, much less a race that has no sexuality because it's a non-organic construct like a golem.

But why should they? I'm rather tired of cultures in fantasy games having X prevailing feature of a real world culture, therefore we're also giving them Y and Z features.

On the sort of topic of rapiers: I really hope the developers don't feel that just because firearms are in the game that all the rest of the visuals have to correspond to the aesthetics and culture of high middle ages/renaissance Europe as if that level of tech is inherently tied to that sort of culture.

Is the general consensus that these studies likely involve participants under reporting? And if so, how do they account for that? Either way, I'd be shocked if it was more than 1%.

The ones I'm thinking of there were so obviously terrible ideas that I find it hard to believe no one saved before doing them, so I wasn't really counting them.

But they aren't. People have been clamoring for nonwhite/European and female player characters for years.

I understand, SanguineAngel, but I'm pretty sure previous discussions have been almost entirely about whether or not relationships featuring romantic love should be possible for the player, and that's what I had in mind with the poll. I hope this is clear and not affecting the vote.

I love utility spells and lack of segregation of gameplay and story elements. All for this.

I'm all fine for choices leading to suboptimal conclusions, negative consequences for the player, deaths of favored companion characters, changes to sub plots and game endings, etc... But in terms of making a choice that actually locks you out of any end game scenario entirely and ends without a conclusive story arc? No thanks. That said, in specific areas I have liked the few games that have had one or more alternate "game over" scenarios, wherein "MISSION FAILURE" or the like doesn't simply appear on screen and force you to reload. Something like the alternate end to Mass Effect 2, or the famous "But the future refused to change." ending of Chrono Trigger. But presumably that would only occur in the end game.

As one of the few people that was pleasantly surprised that knocking off the last mission of the main quest to breed chocobos for twenty hours after your crew had been kidnapped actually lead to their deaths in Mass Effect 2, I'm definitely in favor of their being penalties to taking to long in situations where time should realistically be an issue.

I have no problem with such an option on a moral basis, but I can't imagine any way a discrepancy between your character's physical gender and psychological gender identity would ever even come up. If that means shoehorning in some really awkward dialogue asking "By the way, are you comfortable in your skin?" or an NPC that's largely defined by their transgendered status, then I'd rather it not happen. I understand your frustration at not being included, but then, you're a very tiny minority of the population. It would sadly stretch my suspicion of disbelief if, given the limited population of companions, you somehow happened to end up with one of each of a straight/gay/bi/lesbian/transgendered/intersex character. If an Obsidian writer has a brilliant idea for incorporating one such character into the narrative without it feeling out of place, then of course I'm fine with it. Otherwise...all inclusiveness isn't really feasible.

I've seen a lot of generalizations on both sides of this argument. Often people who want romance arcs and people who are strictly opposed to them (if that polarization of the player base is even valid at all) lump their opposite number into a category that makes broad assumptions about their opinions on multiple subjects. So let's try to characterize these people more so we can stop arguing past each other at straw-men and people that may have annoyed us elsewhere that happen to share an opinion we disagree with. Only vote in the above poll if you are actively hoping for one or more 'romance options' in the game. Hopefully this should set some light on the spread of opinions and the priorities of this particular side of the debate and allow for more nuanced conversation elsewhere on the topic.